UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1579

AMARA CAMARA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted:

August 27, 2008

Decided:

October 22, 2008

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Washington, D.C.,

for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey L.
Menkin, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Amara Camara, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judges denial of his
applications for relief from removal.
Camara first challenges the determination that he failed
to establish eligibility for asylum.

To obtain reversal of a

determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien must show

that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).

We have

reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Camara fails to

show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to
qualify for asylum, Camara cannot meet the more stringent standard
for withholding of removal.*

Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th

Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).

Next, we uphold the finding below that Camara failed to
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured if removed to Guinea.

8 C.F.R. 1208.16(c)(2) (2008).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Camaras challenge to the

Boards finding that he did not meet his burden of showing by clear
and convincing evidence that he filed his asylum application within

Camara claims that the Board erred in declining to consider

evidence he submitted with his appeal brief. We find no error in
the Boards ruling. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (2008).
- 2 -

one year of his entry into the United States.

See 8 U.S.C.

1158(a)(3) (2006); Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th
Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART

- 3 -